Complexity

[nac]

Too much of it tends to confuse people. Is there anything else wrong with it? Too little complexity gives rise to crude views that tend to gloss over much of the subtlety, beauty and mystery of the Tao.

 

Can I call myself a Taoist if I'm a supporter of tasteful maximalism (the opposite of minimalism) in everything?

[nac]

After all, don't simplicity and complexity go hand in hand to create harmony in nature?

[Marblehead]

Too much of it tends to confuse people. Is there anything else wrong with it? Too little complexity gives rise to crude views that tend to gloss over much of the subtlety, beauty and mystery of the Tao.

 

Hi Nac,

 

Simplisity is to look at a thing in its totality. Complexity is to look at what that thing is composed of. The more complex we become the more we loose the full essence of what it is we are looking at.

 

We cannot understand a pig by looking at only its tail. We have to look at the pig in its totality and in its true natural environment. Once we domesticate the pig we have lost part of its 'naturalness'.

 

But, if we wish to discuss what makes a pig a pig then yes, we must go into the complexity of what makes a pig a pig.

 

The same goes with speaking to a philosophy of life. If we are to discuss a philosophy we should first speak to the totality of the philosophy in the most simple terms possible. Once the basics of the totality is understood we can venture into what makes this philosophy unique by examining the more complex aspects of it.

 

This is how we learn - its the way our brain works. From the simple to the more complex. But in the process we should never loose sight of the totality while we are examining the minute aspects of that thing.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[nac]

Sorry to say, this is exactly what I mean when I say that oversimplification glosses over subtlety.

 

Simplisity is to look at a thing in its totality.

This is a generalization. Plus, I would question what you mean by "look at". If you mean "get a superficial feel for", especially aspects that are obvious and/or immediately relevant, then I agree. But if you mean "to thoroughly understand the totality of", then it's often simpler to begin with a bottom-up approach. "Look at" the fundamental building blocks and work your way up, then turn around, "look at" the structure in a holistic light and work your way down to areas of interest. Perceive the object analytically, holistically, phenomenologically, ... in every rational view that applies to it at the same time. Each of those views has its place in the complete picture. This is the best way to fully internalize something "in its totality".

 

That is, "simplicity" consists of a small, but wide collection (ie. a flywhisk sample) of holistic clues about the object. "Complexity" is the totality.

 

Complexity is to look at what that thing is composed of.

Again, I disagree with your metaphysical outlook. This is not at all how I visualize complexity. For me, complexity is a celebration of the richness of experience. What's more, I can prove that while your view is beneficial in certain scenarios, it can also result in a skewed picture of reality when held to exclusion of other perspectives: (watch in full-screen if possible)

 

 

Simplicity is merely superficial experience arising out of deeper processes within the object.

 

The more complex we become the more we loose the full essence of what it is we are looking at.

Once more, I disagree that objects have an "essence" apart from the phenomena giving rise to the details presented to our senses. Is this a necessary component of Taoist beliefs?

 

The simpler the view, the less we know about the object.

 

We cannot understand a pig by looking at only its tail.

Nor by looking at a zen sketch of one, which is the simplest and most holistic view of a pig I can think of.

 

By studying the tail, we can know the totality of the tail, including the knowledge that it's attached to something else.

 

We have to look at the pig in its totality and in its true natural environment.

Uh huh. Look at it, interact with it, study it, cut it open, etc. The more you explore, the better you'll understand. >.< What is The True natural environment of a pig? What does "looking at it" there involve? Running with the pig herds? How do you know it's a pig and not something else camouflaged as a pig? Are you sure you will just know?

 

Looking at a pig in its natural environment conveys no information about it in a holistic sense. It gives us very limited data: what the pig looks like in its natural environment. We can't even predict much about what other pigs look like in their environment.

 

Once we domesticate the pig we have lost part of its 'naturalness'.

And gained something. Perhaps the ancestors of domestic pigs willingly submitted themselves to human care for fleeting lives of food and pleasure. Of course, they don't have the intellect to be aware of their own death. They just went with their flow as we went with ours. In countries where pigs are well taken care of, you don't see them fighting to run away. This has no direct connection with this discussion, just wondering out loud.

 

A domesticated pig is a domesticated pig, a wild boar is a wild boar. All further speculations of relative worth are subjective value judgments. Neither the farmhouse nor open wilds are optimal environments for either creature by any stretch of the imagination.

 

But, if we wish to discuss what makes a pig a pig then yes, we must go into the complexity of what makes a pig a pig.

The questions "what is a pig" and "what makes a pig" only differ pragmatically, in the degree of detail being asked for and areas of focus. The former is a general query that would elicit responses about how to recognize a pig before rambling into further details, while the latter specifically limits the discussion to anatomy. This pragmatic construction is an aspect of English grammar, not a general feature of natural language.

 

Nothing "makes" a pig a pig, ultimately. Certain phenomena interact in certain ways, giving rise to pig-like behavior. There is no pigginess beyond that fact.

 

The same goes with speaking to a philosophy of life. If we are to discuss a philosophy we should first speak to the totality of the philosophy in the most simple terms possible.

If it's an alien philosophy that can't be described in simple terms, does it still have an essence?

 

Once the basics of the totality is understood we can venture into what makes this philosophy unique by examining the more complex aspects of it.

Definitely, but we disagree on what the "basics" are. You say it must be a bird's eye view. I say it can be anything depending on who you are and your areas of interest. Simplicity and complexity are also relative.

 

This is how we learn - its the way our brain works. From the simple to the more complex. But in the process we should never loose sight of the totality while we are examining the minute aspects of that thing.

And never lose sight of the complexity that gives rise to holistic experience.

Edited August 16, 2010 by nac

[nac]

Simplisity is to look at a thing in its totality. Complexity is to look at what that thing is composed of. The more complex we become the more we loose the full essence of what it is we are looking at.

 

We cannot understand a pig by looking at only its tail. We have to look at the pig in its totality and in its true natural environment. Once we domesticate the pig we have lost part of its 'naturalness'.

 

But, if we wish to discuss what makes a pig a pig then yes, we must go into the complexity of what makes a pig a pig.

 

The same goes with speaking to a philosophy of life. If we are to discuss a philosophy we should first speak to the totality of the philosophy in the most simple terms possible. Once the basics of the totality is understood we can venture into what makes this philosophy unique by examining the more complex aspects of it.

 

This is how we learn - its the way our brain works. From the simple to the more complex. But in the process we should never loose sight of the totality while we are examining the minute aspects of that thing.

Thanks, I promise not to lose sight of the overall idea of philosophies and religions when embroiled in their details and vice-versa.

 

PS. I'm turning in. It's 5 AM and I've been awake all night. cya!

Edited August 15, 2010 by nac

[Brian]

...

[Birch]

"what makes a pig a pig"

 

The "ancient Greeks" might say the "pigness" of it.

 

What would a Taoist say?

 

I'd wager and suggest that nothing makes a pig a pig.

 

Edited: for random online search to translate "pigness". It started getting very interesting. Have a looksee

 

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=translate+%22pigness%22+from+latin+to+english&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=80ad42c60efdc633

Edited August 16, 2010 by Kate

[rookie]

nac, it seems you enjoy the complex. It's ok, sure. Is it necessary for spiritual development? no, I don't think so. In fact it can be quite a distraction. How attached are you to it?

That is probably all that matters.

[nac]

^^^ I'm afraid you already have, nac.

Nope, I don't have to let personal stylistic preferences blind me to the ultimate truth. Taoists should know that.

 

I was just wondering if Taoism is compatible with gritty complexity for a change. We're supposed to believe in a natural balance of opposites, so you'd think that makes sense, but no. Apparently, the Tao is simple, NOT complex. Ah well, Taoism is only relevant to the simple side of my spirituality then.

 

As a natural philosopher (and an amateur Taoist), I think you are walking down a dead-end path -- but I have learned the hard way to merely offer such voyagers a bag of bread-crumbs...

Thanks for sharing your experiences! If there's a (no doubt soteriologically relevant) cul-de-sac, I think it's getting absorbed in an all-embracing, illusory simplicity or an equally illusory complexity that obscures one's awareness of the other side. I hope you don't mind me being frank about my opinions. I can't post a detailed response since you've given me nothing to go on save for cryptic hints that I'll waste my life on complexity and then, if saved, die a simple man, (lol) so read the above posts to find out why I don't buy into views partial to simplicity. I'm aware that western philosophy presents a very one-sided report of how reality works, but I think the ones who preach simplicity at the expense of complexity just replace one warped view with another. How can you have flexibility if you're not prepared to look at the whole picture? And I can't see how simplicity alone can be the complete picture.

 

Not only is it counter-intuitive, the reasons advanced for it don't make sense to me either. I'm just disappointed they turned out to be the usual anti-awareness arguments. "Look away from the rational mind and you'll see it our way." I know that. The difference is that once I'm done looking away, I look back. And whenever possible, I prefer to look both ways simultaneously. (although complexity holds more attractions for me, personally)

 

How attached are you to it?

Hopefully, not at all. There's no reason to be attached to complexity in order to believe it's as relevant to spirituality as simplicity is. (just my personal opinion on the subject)

 

It's ok, sure.

Thanks!

[nac]

I'd wager and suggest that nothing makes a pig a pig.

I'd agree, no essence.

 

[C T]

Some of us prefer the simpler life, while there are others who simply thrive under pressure and shine in conflict.

 

Gratefulness, allowing for gracious settling of the heart no matter what life throws up, is not to be confused with simplicity. It often takes an individual a lifetime of determination, heartaches and willful practice to reach the stage of 'allowing', of fully letting go, irrespective of conditions. The ends may be simple, but the means are certainly as complex as complex can be.

 

(Sometimes i ponder about how the deadliest snakes, with the most complex venoms, are often the most strikingly [pun intended] graceful and silent. Would you say they are simple in their deadly nature, or complex in their gracefulness and silence?)

 

The processes that lead to simplest of outcomes often require the most complex of applications of wisdom and understanding....

[Marblehead]

Sorry to say, this is exactly what I mean when I say that oversimplification glosses over subtlety.

 

...

 

And never lose sight of the complexity that gives rise to holistic experience.

 

Hi Nac,

 

Wow! What a response! I won't deal with the complexity of it. Hehehe.

 

However, I do understand what you are saying and basically our main disagreement is to selecting a starting point. I prefer the simplicity, you, based on what I understand, prefer the complexity.

 

Who's right? We both are because we are talking about our own preferrences.

 

However, one more example.

 

Consider a horse. Just look at it from a distance. Now consider the concept of 'usefulness'.

 

What useful purpose could a horse hold for us? Could we ride it so that we could travel a distance faster tan we could walk that distance? Could we use it to pull a plow to cultivate the soil and prepare it for planting? Could we use it to catch mice?

 

Okay, up walks a cat. We look for its usefulness. Can't ride that little puppy! Not strong enough to pull a plow. Ah! Look! It just caught a mouse and is eating it. That mouse had been eating our rice for the past three months.

 

How complex do we need to get in order to find the usefulness of the two animals?

 

Now, can we breed these animals (No! Not with each other!!! With their like kind!) and have more efficient animals? Now we need to get a little more complex.

 

And BTW, those things we find not useful we just let be because they may be useful for someone else.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Oh! I forget. No, I did not see the gorilla the first viewing.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Thanks, I promise not to lose sight of the overall idea of philosophies and religions when embroiled in their details and vice-versa.

 

PS. I'm turning in. It's 5 AM and I've been awake all night. cya!

 

Hehehe. Yeah, we should never ignore the roots of anything - that is where there value lies.

 

I had already shut down when you posted this.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Have a looksee

 

I had a looksee. This caught my attention:

 

..... in the beginning was simply - "pigness," ...

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

I was just wondering if Taoism is compatible with gritty complexity for a change. We're supposed to believe in a natural balance of opposites, so you'd think that makes sense, but no. Apparently, the Tao is simple, NOT complex. Ah well, Taoism is only relevant to the simple side of my spirituality then.

 

 

No, no.

 

I have already spoken to that. Complexity is fine if we wish to know more about any thing or concept. Complexity is not inconsistent with Taoism. It is just that if we need not know the complexity of a thing or concept then why do the research?

 

If we find usefulness in the horse what does it matter if it has one liver or two?

 

Peace & Love!

[Everything]

Sorry to say, this is exactly what I mean when I say that oversimplification glosses over subtlety.

 

 

This is a generalization. Plus, I would...

 

 

 

 

...also relative.

 

 

And never lose sight of the complexity that gives rise to holistic experience.

 

 

Roflmao, I was looking at the video while I counted, and suddenly this gorrilla comes on screen, I was laughing my but off trying to count, hahaha!

 

I did got to 15 tho. Yay

[Everything]

No, no.

 

I have already spoken to that. Complexity is fine if we wish to know more about any thing or concept. Complexity is not inconsistent with Taoism. It is just that if we need not know the complexity of a thing or concept then why do the research?

 

If we find usefulness in the horse what does it matter if it has one liver or two?

 

Peace & Love!

 

Nice thoughts there, but as you said, education should be complex, experience should be simple.

 

Leonardo davinci or micheal angelo, don't remember whom, also found balance in the 8/8/8 schedule of genius. 8 hour work/education, 8hour play/experience, 8 hour sleep/rest/meditation. This is all to achieve succes, but for Taoist, succes is not important.

 

 

Einstein was an artist, he had enough experience coming from his right brained of thinking, he required complexity/education to understand the experiences and artistic simple ideas of his in a more balanced way. This lead to his genius of finding so much succes in his intelect. For other scientists, they seek art to experience the simple in order to get away from the complex for a while to find their genius. This all is personal for every individual.

 

However if you do not wish to reach succes or intelligence in your personal life, then perhaps yes, you do not need to know that the horse has 1 or 2 livers. Perhaps you can perceive that horse is so awesome and perfect. And I agree about becoming a witness to your perceptions instead is what the Tao is all about ^^

[nac]

Marblehead: Thanks! I've already agreed with you. All views have pragmatic uses, none of which are ultimate, absolute or primary w.r.t others. I just happen to "like" complexity, if that makes any sense, but it doesn't mean I base my entire philosophy off of it as a first principle.

 

Everything: Hush, you!

[Birch]

And if you spend time with pigs without the "pigness" idea in mind then it starts getting really interesting. Pigs are violent and they eat their children sometimes...

 

In fact, the more you take the labels off things and just look at them, well, the more interesting it gets. Take insects for example. Super weird.

 

I don't know whether this is an example of complexity or simplicity. Both of those have their uses if you are trying to reverse engineer. Or, if you are trying to pull the wool over on someone. Or if you are trying to sell someone something. Or...

 

How many more applications for each? Ten-thousand !

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

Marblehead: Thanks! I've already agreed with you. All views have pragmatic uses, none of which are ultimate, absolute or primary w.r.t others. I just happen to "like" complexity, if that makes any sense, but it doesn't mean I base my entire philosophy off of it as a first principle.

 

Everything: Hush, you!

 

Thanks Nac. I think I need not comment.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

How many more applications for each? Ten-thousand !

 

Yeah, at least that many. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[idquest]

Too much of it tends to confuse people. Is there anything else wrong with it? Too little complexity gives rise to crude views that tend to gloss over much of the subtlety, beauty and mystery of the Tao.

 

Can I call myself a Taoist if I'm a supporter of tasteful maximalism (the opposite of minimalism) in everything?

We need both wholeness and detailed complexity as MH has said.

 

Look at the Sun. It is white and warm - this is wholeness. But at the same time its irradiation is the full spectrum from invisible gamma - ultraviolet - to blue/green/red - and then again to invisible infrared. This is detailed complexity.

 

There is a notion (including this board) that people don't need detail as long as they can grasp wholeness. In my veiw this is false. The level of ability to understand detail is what distinguish human from animals, plants and bacteria. The ability to absorb the full gamut of detail is what can shift Tao to self-realization.

[Vajrahridaya]

Nope, I don't have to let personal stylistic preferences blind me to the ultimate truth. Taoists should know that.

 

I was just wondering if Taoism is compatible with gritty complexity for a change. We're supposed to believe in a natural balance of opposites, so you'd think that makes sense, but no. Apparently, the Tao is simple, NOT complex. Ah well, Taoism is only relevant to the simple side of my spirituality then.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your experiences! If there's a (no doubt soteriologically relevant) cul-de-sac, I think it's getting absorbed in an all-embracing, illusory simplicity or an equally illusory complexity that obscures one's awareness of the other side. I hope you don't mind me being frank about my opinions. I can't post a detailed response since you've given me nothing to go on save for cryptic hints that I'll waste my life on complexity and then, if saved, die a simple man, (lol) so read the above posts to find out why I don't buy into views partial to simplicity. I'm aware that western philosophy presents a very one-sided report of how reality works, but I think the ones who preach simplicity at the expense of complexity just replace one warped view with another. How can you have flexibility if you're not prepared to look at the whole picture? And I can't see how simplicity alone can be the complete picture.

 

Not only is it counter-intuitive, the reasons advanced for it don't make sense to me either. I'm just disappointed they turned out to be the usual anti-awareness arguments. "Look away from the rational mind and you'll see it our way." I know that. The difference is that once I'm done looking away, I look back. And whenever possible, I prefer to look both ways simultaneously. (although complexity holds more attractions for me, personally)

 

 

Hopefully, not at all. There's no reason to be attached to complexity in order to believe it's as relevant to spirituality as simplicity is. (just my personal opinion on the subject)

 

 

Thanks!

 

My sentiments exactly! Very nice.